• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* English Football Season 2010-11

sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
shivfan said:
That's because I don't see how Turin is relevant to the discussion. Are you saying Juventus and Lazio are sharing grounds? Or are you mixing it up with Milan, where AC and Inter are ground-sharing? And how does two football teams sharing grounds have any relevance to a ground being shared by two totally different sports at different times of the year?

And you still haven't shown me why it's wrong to keep a running track when for 80% of the year the stadium is used for other purposes. Other countries do it, so why not West Ham?
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't actually mention Lazio at all, but yes, both they and Juventus have for a long time shared their grounds, though obviously not with each other. It's also a well known fact that the fans of the sides which share the two stadiums in question generally despise the presence of the running track due to the effect it has on the atmosphere of the place. There's no doubt that this is at least partly the reason why both the Delle Alpi in Turin scarcely got anymore than 1/3 full (and has now been razed to the ground so a ground without a running track can be built) and why the Olympico in Rome is never anywhere near capacity attendance either. The presence of a running track at a football ground is archaic, and it's well renowned to be a completely undesirable feature. It's of no great surprise that all of the great grounds which had running tracks are slowly disappearing (Wembly, the Olympic Stadium in Munich etc...) and even those which are developed with running tracks are later renovated so that they are no longer present (Eastlands). To keep a running track for the sake of it is just pointless, particularly when there's a common consensus amongst fans of any major sides that their presence is undesirable in the extreme, I don't think there's a lot to do for justifying their retention.
 
shivfan

shivfan

Banned
Why did I say Lazio? That's in Rome....
:wacko:
Obviously, I meant Torino....

I think the problems with declining attendances in Serie A have more to do with other factors more important than mere running tracks around a football field in Turin and Rome. But remember, Paris has a running track around their football field, and that stadium was used for the World Cup final in 1998.

In the end, the London stadium is being used for the Olympics. There is an athletics legacy there, which will allow the city to bid to hold other international events in the future, be it the World Champs or the Diamond League. That is, in the end, more important than football concerns. Any football club seeking to take it over needs to bear that in mind.

A decision should be announced very soon....
 
James

James

Cricket Web Owner
Apparently, there's talk about temporary "lower tier" seating going up over the running track for football matches. That's what I'm reading on West Ham forums I visit anyway.
 
shivfan

shivfan

Banned
Oh, and by the way, 4 Times Winners, and 4 Times Runners Up of the European Cup/Champions League, Bayern Munich, managed to do ok with their inherited Olymic Stadium, running track and all.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not sure what point you're trying to make there.. it's not like the running track makes any difference to a team's ability on the pitch
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
shivfan said:
Oh, and by the way, 4 Times Winners, and 4 Times Runners Up of the European Cup/Champions League, Bayern Munich, managed to do ok with their inherited Olymic Stadium, running track and all.
Click to expand...
But they moved out to a purpose built, football stadium.

The presence of running tracks in football grounds is crap. You're simply too far away from the action.

Hampden doesn't have a full size running track, but it still retains its oval shape that it was designed with in 1903. As a result, it is ****e for spectators - there's a seperate issue with the gradient of the stands being too shallow which doesn't help viewing, but being so far away from the action is terrible. If you're in the front 10 or so rows behind both goals you'd be as well not bothering to attend and watch the match on TV. Of all the grounds I've been to, Hampden is by far the worst in terms of view and actually seeing the action.
 
shivfan

shivfan

Banned
Then let West Ham also use this one until they eventually decide to move out....

If a football club is prepared to use a football field surrounded by a running track, then they should be given precedence over one that chooses to destroy it.

Decision has been delayed....
 
shivfan

shivfan

Banned
Obviously, West Ham gets the recommendation from the committee, for a decision that's likely to be rubber-stamped by the Mayor and the government....

That was the only real outcome, frankly.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
shivfan, it's all well and good saying Athletics should be the main concern but where the hell is the money going to come from to sustain this stadium? Oh, yeah, football....
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
GeraintIsMyHero said:
shivfan, it's all well and good saying Athletics should be the main concern but where the hell is the money going to come from to sustain this stadium? Oh, yeah, football....
Click to expand...
Yeah, this coupled with what Furball said earlier is exactly why I think it's a poor idea to keep the track. It's in nobody's interest other than those who want to watch athletics, and I don't think I'd be wrong to suggest that the numbers of people who fall into that category are far outweighed by those who would rather watch football. Paying hundreds of millions of pounds to build the stadium for the Olympics and then millions more to maintain its upkeep and so on for years later on the basis that England/the UK might win the bid to host some other athletics event in the future wouldn't even come close to justifying the cost. West Ham have done well to get a hold of it, but I'd love to hear what their fans have to say about this after a few years of playing their home games there, after having a ground with a lot of history and atmosphere where the fans are more or less on the touchline for around 100 years I don't imagine they will take kindly to the change. The fact that the Stadium is eligible for tenancy to a football club illustrates precisely why it's inviable for it to be maintained as purely an athletics stadium, the fact that West Ham have agreed to keep the running track and have been awarded it on this basis seems ill-thought to say the least.
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
shivfan said:
And Paris has a football stadium ring-fenced by a running track, and it worked fine for the World Cup final. So, why not here?
Click to expand...
It hosted the game yes, so if that's your definition of working fine then any ground could do it - doesn't mean the atmosphere isn't **** though.
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
shivfan said:
Oh, and by the way, 4 Times Winners, and 4 Times Runners Up of the European Cup/Champions League, Bayern Munich, managed to do ok with their inherited Olymic Stadium, running track and all.
Click to expand...
The same Bayern Munich who moved out of there as soon as alternative became available?
 
S

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Craig said:
Qataris close to buying Manchester United in £1.6bn deal - report - ESPN Soccernet

:blink:

Social will know more then me, but how on earth could they ever make that sort of return on their money spent? Unless this is all just spare change for them.
Click to expand...
Virtually nobody makes a return on money invested in a football team - it's just a ****ty investment

However, the Qataris are following the Dubai model and trying to create brand awareness (and alternate sources of income for their country if it promotes tourism) by investing in iconic brands such as MU, Barcelona and Harrods plus they are trying to show the other Arab states that they are the big boys on the block

Trouble is, the dumb ****s have already bought the WC so this is really just hosing money up against a wall because it will literally add nothing

Anyway, the Qataris are generally recognised as being amongst the most stupid of the nouveau riche natural resource producers and this is just another example
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top